direct talks are not possible. do you think there are prospects for a deal, and do you have a plan to move this forward? >> that was three questions. [laughter] >> 1 plus 1 does not equal 2. >> well done, i am impressed. [indiscernible] i beg your pardon? i am taking stock every day. next time i will ask you to ask half a question. let me answer that. the first part of your question, let me say that i do not know what the discussions were in the white house and who said what, and i will not go backwards. this is a new administration now. i am a new secretary of state and we are going forward from this point. my sense right now is that everybody in the administration and people in other parts of

the world are deeply distressed by the continued violence in syria. there is too much killing, too much violence, and we obviously want to find a way forward. there are serious questions about aqi, al qaeda in iraq, coming in and other violent groups on the ground. it is a very complicated and very dangerous situation. everybody understands it is a place that has chemical weapons, and we're deeply concerned about that. i would just say to you that we are evaluating. we are evaluating. we're taking a look at what steps, if any -- diplomatic -- particularly might be able to be taken in an effort to try to reduce that violence and deal with the situation. when we are prepared to tell you, you will be the first to know.

we will let you know. we will evaluate this as we go forward. i knew the foreign minister and i talked about this at length, at length, and we both share a deep concern about what is happening there. i am going to focus on it quite considerably. on iran, we are deeply concerned about the arms that went into yemen. i think the yemenis need to speak to that first, before we do, but i want to emphasize the announcement the iranians themselves have made in a letter to the iaea in which they have announced a different kind of centrifuge. it is concerning. it is disturbing.

my plea to the iranians -- or my statement -- is a clear statement. we are prepared to let diplomacy be the victor in this confrontation over their nuclear program. the president has made it clear that iran is prepared to talk about a peaceful nuclear program. iran has a choice. they have to prove to the world that it is peaceful, and we are prepared to sit reasonably and negotiate how they can do that and how we can all be satisfied with respect to the united nations requirements in the effort to do that. or they can choose to be more isolated, as i said earlier. it is really their choice, not ours, as to which way they want

to go. the administration, the president has made it clear that his preference is to have a diplomatic solution, but if he cannot get there, he is prepared to do whatever is necessary to make certain that iran does not have a nuclear weapon. >> hi, there. congratulations, senator kerry, and welcome. one have question -- keystone. president obama made a point of emphasizing the need to confront climate change. does that bode badly for keystone? and a quick one about concerns over obligations that canadians have been involved in the last couple of recent terror attacks. >> with respect to the keystone, secretary clinton has

put in place a very open and transparent process, which i am committed to seeing through. i can guarantee you that it will be fair and transparent, accountable, and we hope that we will be able to be in a position to make an announcement in the near term. i do not want to pin down precisely when, but i assure you, in the near term. i will not go into the merits of it here today. i take great respect, as i did in my comments earlier, to the important energy relationship with canada and the importance of the overall relationship, but we have a legitimate process that is underway, and i intend to honor that. >> we had a good discussion with respect to keystone. we appreciated the secretary's comments at his confirmation hearings. we spoke about making decisions based on science and based on fact. obviously, when it comes to the

environment, i think we have like-minded objectives. mr. harper and mr. obama have both set a 7% reduction in emissions. -- 17% we have worked together on reducing emissions in cars and trucks. canada is aggressively moving forward on our plan to ban and phase out dirty coal-fired electricity, and i think we all share the need for a growing economy to create jobs. we share the desire on energy security in north america, and we also share the objective of protecting our environment for future generations, and those will be areas where we will continue to work together. [speaking in french]

[speaking in french] merci. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very, very much. we appreciate it. >> appreciate it. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> >> 3 of her four children died, her four sons died, one in

the lightest and one shortly after her husband's assassination. the kinds of grief this woman was going for was amazing, mary todd lincoln. everyone thought she was crazy. we found that she was not crazy. mary todd was a significant person and i hope someday we get a better view of the range of things that influenced her life, not just the tragedy. >> this new cspan series -- a first of its kind project for television, examining the public and private lives of first ladies -- it begins in just over one week. >> if someone paid him to write 10 columns for $2,000 each and he sends them in and gets the

money and they publish only six, he summons the editor and says, i wrote to an annual only publish six them the publishers said, but we paid you. this is the standard answer. coolidge said maybe those columns were not good enough. he gave $8,000 back. why would he give back the money? he was entitled to keep it and that was his business lesson, his philosophy lesson. he wanted to be a good citizen. it is very rare behavior now. i admired that. the light of the 30th president of the united states sunday night at 8:00 and cspan's "q &a." >> at a retreat for house democrats in lansdowne, va.,

former president bill clinton discusses jobs, health care, and gun-control. he is introduced by maryland congressman steny hoyer. does not need an introduction. but then i would not have anything to say. [laughter] so you know -- thank you, thank you, thank you. for over 20 years, bill clinton has been a determined evangelist for the american dream. the voters of this country put him in the white house twice. not only because he understands what the american dream is all about, but because he also has a gift for explaining why our party is so committed to defending and promoting the dream. during his eight years as president, he oversaw record job growth, 22.7 million jobs created. he also became the first president to balance the budget

four years in a row. the stock market went up 226%. it went down 25% under george bush. the years of his presidency were a time when our middle- class felt secure. it was a time when our economy created opportunities for more people to afford college. i have supported a constitutional amendment to repeal the 22nd amendment, which says that people cannot reelect a president for a third term. the chairman of the judiciary committee co-sponsored that with me. he was an opponent of term limits. i went up to him after the election and said henry, i'm going to put that bill in again. he said fine. on tuesday, we came back.

henry was sitting on one of the seats. he said, i do not want you to put my name on that bill. henry, you have co-sponsored this for five congresses. i discussed it with my staff and they say if we pass that amendment, bill clinton may be reelected. [laughter] when i asked him why, he told me. it was a reflection of the respect and fear they have about bill clinton. he has continued to set his sights on service. after eight years in office, he had seen the terrible effects of poverty and illness of those

living in the developing world. in launching the clinton global initiative, he continues to widen the constellation of challenges in which he has applied his extraordinary talents and energy. limits on religious freedom, every impediment to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. after president of the united states, he could only become president of the world. the praise the respect he receives from both sides of the aisle says big volumes about his character. the man he defeated, former president george h. w. bush said, if clinton were the titanic, the iceberg would have sunk. it has less to do with this sharp political acumen and more to do with his deeply held values and ideals.

bill clinton believes in an america that is tied in a single garment of destiny. our fates are bound together and we should work together. a man from hope continues to work to give hope to millions. bill clinton has taught us that while hope is a powerful motivator, it takes more than that to build the future we dream of. as we revitalize our discussion about how to renew the american dream, i ask you to join me in welcoming a great proponent of the american dream, the honorable william jefferson clinton. [applause]

[applause] >> thank you very much. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. >> we miss you. >> thank you. sometimes, i miss you. [laughter] most of the time, i like what i am doing. i want to thank steny for the introduction. we talked a few days ago when he said, what do you want me to say? i said, tell them you like

playing golf with me. when i was presidentand that you did not throw the games. i want to congratulate and thank nancy pelosi for her tireless efforts in the last election cycle and all of her leadership. thank you, joe kelly, my fellow new yorker. i understand she had to leave, debbie wasserman schultz, but i was always reassured to see her on television when i was worried about the outcome. i want to thank steve israel, who i think has been one of the most thoughtful people in the house and who proved once again that if you really want to be

successful in the long run in this business, you have to be good politics and policy. you have to think about what we're going to do and how will affect people. i have the honor of campaigning for a lot of you in the last election. i am very excited about the new members. [applause] not only because if i were a member of this caucus, i would be in the minority, which i think is a good thing, but because the diversity extends far beyond the categories visible to the eye or that you can put in an adjective. there's so much difference here in terms of life experience and

knowledge and understanding the various aspects of are extremely complex society that i think he'll have a real chance to do some phenomenally creative and effective things. a few years ago, a writer wrote an interesting book called "the wisdom of crowds." since then, international surveys of how the brain works. if you took a room and you put in this room 20 or 25 people of average intelligence who cared about a set of problems and you put in another room a genius with a 200 iq and you kept feeding them questions and problems, over time, the crowd

would make a better decisions than a genius. it is one of the reasons that we should be supporting diversity to build unity, the old harmony, build a better future. it is one of the reasons that i think where our party is and what we are trying to do so important. i want to offer a few observations about this. i went through both the last few election cycles. i remember i told hillary in the process, we are going to take a terrible licking. conscience. i would like to talk about what

this means. i read the president's remarks and i was very appreciative of what he said and i know vice- president biden was here. i want you to think about what you were going to do the next two years, where you want to end up, and how this is a part of a long-term struggle. people sometimes ask me if i'd was upset when the whole pattern of budgets i tried to establish was repealed after president bush won and the congress went back to trickle- down economics. you have to understand, nothing is permanent. it is an ongoing enterprise.

one of the oscar-nominated movies "lincoln" is about one of the most important areas of history. the heroic battle to pass the 13th amendment banning slavery. if you ask most americans about lincoln, i know he was the president during the civil war. he was assassinated, he issued the emancipation proclamation. they know about the gettysburg address. that is about it. maybe they know the second inaugural address -- the finest inaugural address ever given. almost nobody knows the story of the 13th amendment. most americans do not even know the emancipation proclamation could only free the slaves and seceded.

almost nobody knows why he decided to try to get it through congress when if he had waited until after he was inaugurated, it would have been much easier to pass. he was mortified by the fact that he could not get 75% of the states to ratify the amendment. he practiced politics. what you are doing is a noble thing, but everybody will be watching. if you were doing that, there will be live coverage around the clock. we would all know, but would we understand it? it requires us to maintain a level of direct relationships with the voters that in former times was mediated by the way politicians related to leaders and newspaper editors and other things.

i would like to talk about this. the last election was an election where people chose an inclusive future. they also were pretty savvy. they decided they believed in arithmetic after all and they did not like it when somebody said we will do this and we will give you all these tax cuts and then when asked about what it meant and how we can pay for it, they said, see me about that after the election. that was a good thing. and they voted against going back on a lot of what we had done. make no mistake about it, this is not just about repealing obamacare and repealing much of what i did. this is about repealing much of the 20th century. somebody asked me, why are you doing this? i am too old to relitigate the

things i thought had been settled in the 1960's and 1970's. [applause] i want us to worry about the 21st century and how to make the most of it. i believe that we are in an interesting and delicate paradoxical position. if we are clear about where we are and what we have to do. there was a brief period at the end of the cold war where the united states was the only military, economic, and

political superpower. i did my best to prepare us for an era in which we would still be the leading country in the world, but which others would enjoy on president and prosperity and once that happened, whether we really only military superpower was a question of how they decided to spend their money. and whether we were a political superpower was a question of how they decided to spend their diplomacy. we're going to live in a more competitive world. one of the challenges all of you will face is that americans of almost all political stripes have been notoriously resistant to arguments based on what our competitors are doing. health care, economic policy,

education policy, you name it. it is really interesting for a country that is so sports crazy because i can see the harbaugh brothers getting ready for the super bowl, examining what every single player was doing and trying to figure out where the weaknesses were. we're going to have to get more comfortable being honest about the results the competition gets from doing x, y, and z. we led the world in the development of widespread usage of cell phones, but now on a national basis, south korea speeds are four times as ours. communities are increasing their capacity.

chattanooga, tennessee, did and now they're becoming a health care center. google is spending all of that money in kansas city. we have got to be more comfortable in talking to people about what works. what is working that other countries are doing. the diversity of the representation in the house will be helpful for that. i think also we have to learn something from how historically brave actions by your predecessors in this caucus played out in the electorate. when were they rewarded? when were they punished?

and later rewarded? i cannot tell you how many nights in the white house, every single night before i went to bed, for months and months and months after the 1994 election, i thought about the people who were defeated because they voted for the economic program, because they voted for the assault weapons ban. i knew exactly what happened. i thought a lot about those who survived and why they did. as you look ahead and you decide, what are we going to do about the budget, what are we going to do about having the democrats branded as the party of jobs and innovation for the future? make no mistake about it, the republicans will try very hard

not to make it as easy for you to win by-reference. - negative reference. there were some places where we won because people saw what they wanted to do when they did not like it. all of you sounded better. we now are going to have to have an affirmative agenda for jobs and innovation. [applause] you have got to do it. it is important to do immigration right. and to do it as soon as possible. i think it is important to take some action now that it is possible on the issue of gun violence, but it is important to do a right. i could go across america if we had time and tell you who survived very well voting for the assault weapons ban and the

brady bill in 1993 and 1994, and who did not. and why. i want to say a little about that. but i think that the people who disagree with us will not make it quite as easy to draw the contrast by the things they do and say as they did last time. that is the message i got out of the house republican meeting. we're going to put on a happy face. it is easy to sneer at that, but depending on how you navigate troubled waters, and supporting the president's agenda in developing what i hope you will do, your own ideas how

to promote jobs and innovation and try to win support, it is important to recognize that we have never -- except in the searing moments of the debates in presidential elections -- or every year for the state of the union -- general images over a specific moments is a strategy of theirs is not necessarily guaranteed to fail. there are lots of things we can talk about on the politics. i want to talk about the substance. you were elected because people thought you were a better candidate. because you had a message people believed in.

because you ran a political culture that would accept you as a potential member of congress. people did not blame our party for the conditions they face today do not like. they knew they were triggered by events that happened before the president took office. i think the most important thing is this is a job. it is a job. keeping it requires you to do it and to sell it simultaneously. it is normally harder at midterms because it is more difficult to draw the contrast in a way favorable to you and because the turnout goes down. we will talk more about that later.

let's focus on the job. here is the dilemma. we do have a long term the debt problem. that does not mean austerity is the right response. i know -- i do not know what she said, but she is an impressive person. here is the problem. paul krugman is right but you cannot be deceived by what he is right about. when interest rates are below inflation, that tells you there is insufficient demand for money. therefore, you have to keep poking at the economy to get it going again. since the republicans won the house, the federal reserve has tried to fulfill that role and put more money in the economy because they always like

president. that sounds more cynical than it is. we like to spend taxpayer money on things we think are investments in the future. they like to spend taxpayer money on tax cuts and defense programs they think are okay. their position to decide the debt was the worst problem in the world, it is highly determined by who is in theas all of you know. we have a big debt problem and it cannot be solved right now by conventional austerity measures. that is why paul krugman is

right. you get in to the downward spiral and drag the country back into recession. we need a jobs program. i have a lot of ideas on how you can do it. we need a strategy to promote innovation, started businesses coming keep the manufacturing sector expanding combat repatriate and bring back investment in america, money that is the overseas. i personally would favor letting a lot of that money be brought back if a certain percentage was investing in an infrastructure bank in america.

[applause] the rate of return on the infrastructure is so high, including i.t. infrastructure, you could sell the investments like you would bonds. i will give you 6% tax-free rate of return if you invest here. if you could get some of that repatriated money invested, a lot of pension funds would invest, looking for higher returns than they can get in any conventional bond issue, but have to have solid guaranteed returns. i think we could do a lot of this stuff, but you need a program to do this. i remember i did an event for congressman delaney and i called our mutual friend.

he said more in five minutes about how to create jobs than i have heard anybody say in this campaign so far. people were listening. i think it is really important -- we are not and the majority and they will not do that. when i left office, one of my regrets was that i did not raise more sand about things i thought should be done because i did not want to waste any time talking about things i knew we could not pass the congress. i had this amazing argument once in the white house with chairman greenspan. about the position financial derivatives did not need to be regulated like agricultural

commodities were. only rich people could buy them and they were fully capable of making those judgments. if you do not have any capital requirement and transparency requirements, no class of people is immune from error, ignorance or foolishness. at the time, the republican majority did not want to fund the sec. they were exercising their oversight function. i did not say as much in public as i did in private because i was trying to get a lot done. i later came to regret that. sometimes starting the debates is important. we need an economic strategy. if you do not have growth, you cannot fix the debt problem. [applause]

if you look at what is happening, it is true that the deficits are going to be below a trillion dollars for the first time in several years. it is true that the economy is beginning to grow again. this is almost like the reverse of what we did in 1993. i was perfectly well aware that if we raise taxes and cut spending, it could have a dragging effect on the economy. not nearly as much as having low growth or then having interest rates that were too high. so our gamble was that the explosive effect of lowing interest rates with a booming bond market and having more disposal income over five-10

year period to invest in america's future would more than offset putting the hammer down by raising more money and cutting spending. it turned out to be a good gamble. it will make sense here again. but timing is everything. so i think you should have a budget that does not defy arithmetic and does not follow in the trap that we had for 20 of the last 32 years which is you always get more money when you cut taxes. but it is also important that we recognize if there is literally no growth you dope get many revenues anyway. -- don't get many revenues anyway. what we need is a jobs program with all of its elements and a longer-term plan to bring the debt down that action set rates

as growth picks up. yesterday, there was this little chart in "u.s.a. today,"" for example it said budget break down slated for -- defense 18 and interest on the debt 7. the only reason that is seven is because interest rates are so low. if interest rates were what they were when i was president, that number would be 15. where would you get the other eight? where would you get the other eight? >> that is why you need a long- term plan. you don't want it to go to 15 overnight. you want to put the brakes on it, do it gradually and work it down. we need to put jobs and income

front and center. future growth we need a plan for that. i think that is important. the other thing i would like to say is that today primarily with the executive branch but something that you have to watch. we democrats own the health reform issue now. i personally think it was the best bill you could have passed in the congress with the circumstances given, the filibuster problem in the senate. i think we were always going to pass the health care reform. there's a lot of good things in that bill. it really matters how it is implemented.

if certain problems come up that need changing you need to get caught trying to change them even if you can't pass it. because we have to do this right. we can't keep spending at 17.8% income on health care and none of our competitors above 11.8. we can't afford it. we just can't do it. i think it is very important to identify those areas -- you saw that study about a third of the money was wasted but it could be saved without compromising health care at palm we should try to incentivize better decisions on the bart of citizens so we can -- on the part of citizens so we don't

spend a lot of money on sickness. i urge you not to walk away from this issue because a bill was passed. the implementation of this bill and getting our income closer to that have of our major competitors that have beth -- better health outcome than we do. if you look at pennsylvania, every year under state law publishes the cost of certain publishes the outcome by hospital. it is clear every single year there is no connection between the price paid and the result achieved even within pennsylvania, which is a large state with a significant amount of diversity and, therefore,

good enough for us to learn from. stay with this. make it work. prove we were right to do it. it had to be done. one of the reasons that medium family income before the crash was lower than it was the day i that so many employers wanted to give their employees pay increases had to spend it on their health care premiums instead. i think it is important. it will be important long-term to balancing the budget. i don't have an answer to this problem, but i wish we could do is not permit it under budget rules. as all of you know the republican answer on all the health care issues, including medicaid and medicare is get it

off the books. give it to the states. end the budget problem. privatize a lot of medicare. end the budget problem. the problem is they are proposing people to take the less expensive and throw them into a more expensive system and the market will make the more expensive less expensive. all it does is clean up the government books. i get that. but our problem coming back is we can't score now what will be the end result of changing the whole payment system for example. paying for performance instead of procedure which i think has to be done. all of these things that has to be done are not necessarily

score able. i don't know how you're going to do this. but i think this will be very important. it is the sort of lumbering underneath the radar economic issue as well as the health care issue that i think there plenty of people in this caucus that are knowledgeable enough, creative enough to know what to do about it. i believe that we will get immigration reform for all the reasons that everyone has pointed out and i think it is a good thing. i world like to point out, i would be as forward leaning on this issue for any number of reasons. i read a piece the other day that said there is now a standing annual demand in america for 120,000 with computer science degrees and despite the fact that you have college grads driving cabs you only have 40,000 with computer science degrees every year.

until we find out how to close that, that and the general stem gap, we should have immigration to help. i would give every college graduate in america that comes from another country whatever incentive i had to let them stay here and work until we have solved these problems. that's what i would do. \[applause] the irony of our electing all these children of immigrants to congress and letting everyone tell their story is there are several countries that have developed economies, including australia and canada. they have a higher percentage of their population than immigrants than we do. we're back to where germany is

because of all this. we need to work it through and again, details matter, but i think it is really, really important to do it and do it right. the last thing i would like to say is it is obvious as a political strategy that it is very much in the interest of our party and the values and the programs and the directions that we believe in to make the electorate to look like in the previous years. i think that is obvious. i also think we should not rely on demography alone. begin a conversation with people who are not as extreme as a lot of candidates they voted for in the republican party that

we can get to be for us. and i see this whole gun issue as an opportunity not a toxic landmine. but it depends on how you do it. one thing that disturbed me when i was here serving that i saw carried forward and manifested in 2010 in some of the elections is, we've had too many people who consult with us and tell us how to do things. the do polls and here's five things that you did and four of them is really popular and this is a hot issue to so talk about one through four. just think about that. would there be a successful marriage that took that position?

would there be a successful business enterprise or sports team or any other kind of relationship that depends on trust if you took that position? in my state of arkansas we call that walking into someone's living room and seeing a huge pink elephant and you don't get far by telling them how pretty the sofa is. that is wrong. theou're going to stir up storm over immigration, health care, taking up easier access to the polls a priority, if you're going to do these things you have to alternative into them, not away from them. you cannot assume that people -- oh, that is not my demographic, i have nothing to say to them and they have nothing to say to us.

one example, i went home to arkansas. there were hundreds in this group, about 70 had passed away since we started this even but one of the people was this unbelievable old-fashioned democrat. he came up to me, he looked at me and says don't let them blow this gun debate bill. i thought he was going to say, you know, i've been effective like everyone else by all this propaganda. we got to do this. we got to do something on this. this is not responsible.

he says no, i'm not talking about this. he lived in a town of 1,300 and it is the biggest town in the county. it is not our demographic. but he said i got a friend that owns dozens and dozens of guns and wished he owns more. he's a collector. he has more guns than anybody you know. i don't get this stuff in washington. he said i don't know how anybody could be against doing a background on everybody who buys a gun. if i get them from a gun show i ought to do a background check. i will tell you something else he said, you can't walk through my house without stepping over the guns. 10on't need more than bullets in an ammunition clip. he says my point is if you walked into this house you would say let me get out of here

without getting shot. it is important to turn -- not to give up on anybody, talk to them. the worst that can happen is people say we're not crazy, all these people sage you're trying to end the rights to second amendment then may listen to you on the four thing where is they do agree with you. but they can't hear the four things if they don't know where you are on the fifth issue, whatever it is but in this case i'm talking about guns. that's the only political advice i want to give you. you start up the storm with the health care thing, explain it and make sure it works. don't let it go because it is in law and it is someone else's problem. it is also a complicated issue. you may need to change it.

the same thing is true in this gun debate. i think we ought to stay with this issue but you can do it in a way that recognizes that people are out there that are not supposed to be our demographic but they are thinking about this too. they are not making a living as part of a washington lobby group. they were sick when these children were killed. a lot of people where i grew up were asking themselves, if that young man had to load three times as often as he did would all those children have been killed? people out in the country make a living -- this is a big part of their lives and ask question, could anything be done? what about any other place where more than a few people were killed?

they are more likely to figure out the answer to that than most of us who don't live with this every day. so turn into this. treat these people as our friends, our neighbor, people we share our country with. i think you got a great opportunity. look, the country is thriving because we are diverse, we have a great technology base, we have a great research base, we still have immense advantages. i think we're going to be fine. we have to learn to compare ourselves with the competition that is not threatening, not negative. we have to have a jobs agenda that is affordable and realistic. we need a 10 year plan. when interest rates you're going to have imposed austerity because we can't stay with the

debt this big at reasonable interest rates. do it all in the same spirit that you took out there in this last election. i think you're going to be fine. it is a great time to be in public service. there is no reason to be negative about the future. now that you won this race in large measure on what have the american people did not want, we have to create a future that they do want. thank you very much. \[applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> having observed a steady improvement in the opportunities and well-being of our citizens,

i can report to you this date of this old but youthful union is good. >> once again, in keeping with time honored tradition, i have come to report to you on the state of the union. i am pleased to report that america is much improved and there is good reason to believe that improvement will continue. >> my duty tonight is to report on the state of the union, not the state of our government, but of our american community and to set for their responsibilities in the words of our founders -- to form a more perfect union. the state of the union is strong. >> as we gather to night, our nation is at war, our economy is in recession, and the the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers, yet the state of our union has never been stronger. >> it's because of our people

that our future is hopeful, our journey goes forward and the state of our union is strong. >> tuesday, president doe, delivers this year's address live on c-span with of the preview program followed by the gop response and your reaction. the state of the union, tuesday night on c-span. >> today on c-span, "washington journal" is next. then the library of congress post a discussion about a pioneer of telecommunications deregulation and later, a state of the state addresses. in about 45 minutes, the national security editor national"usa today" in sequestration and van -- and then